General Rules for Manuscript Review of Herald of Medicine

To guarantee journal quality, peer review shall be conducted for every submitted manuscript. Set forth below are the review requirements, acceptance?rejection principles and notes for this journal.

1.Political Requirements

Manuscript content shall uphold the Four Cardinal Principles, adhere to dialectical materialism, implement the Party’s and the state’s policies on science?technology, health and publishing, and comply with national laws and regulations. No political errors, exaggerated claims or information leakage shall occur.

2.Academic Requirements

How to properly evaluate the quality of medical and pharmaceutical scientific papers? Assessment can generally be carried out from three dimensions: specialty content, writing quality and statistics.

In terms of specialty content, reviewers shall assess whether the manuscript reflects the latest achievements of relevant disciplines in China to the maximum extent and represents the national level of medical?pharmaceutical development. Meanwhile, full consideration shall be given to China’s current medical?pharmaceutical research capacity and practical work demands. The principles of integrating theory with practice, combining popularization with improvement, as well as the policy of “letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend” shall be followed. Manuscripts must be realistic, objective and accurate, possess certain academic value and provide guidance for readers. Attention shall be paid to technical maturity, rigorous research design, compliance of clinical trials with basic principles of clinical research design and biomedical research ethical guidelines, representativeness of subject selection, rationality of random grouping and sample size, accuracy and reliability of test methods, sufficiency of diagnostic evidence, completeness of data materials, objectivity and depth in clinical manifestation observation and curative?effect evaluation, validity and completeness of data, and adequacy of supporting evidence for conclusions. Compared with similar domestic published articles, reviewers shall identify whether the paper contains novel or in?depth practical experience, research findings and insights from the authors. Plagiarism and appropriation shall also be checked.

For narrative literature reviews and lecture?style manuscripts, topics of general current significance shall be addressed to reflect updated progress in medicine and pharmacy, with original viewpoints or evaluations from the authors.

In terms of writing quality, reviewers shall assess readability, appropriateness of diction, conciseness and focus of the core theme.

In terms of statistics, reviewers shall examine the rigor of statistical research design, correctness of data collection and presentation, and accuracy of computation and result interpretation.

The inter?relationship among the three dimensions is as follows: specialty content constitutes the substance or objective; writing quality serves as the form or presentation; statistics provides critical evidence for validating specialty conclusions.

3.Writing?related Requirements

3.1 Text

Check whether the title is precise, concise and consistent with the main text content. Verify whether the abstract at the beginning is succinct, and whether the introduction directly states the research background and objectives. Evaluate the rationality of manuscript structure, clarity of hierarchy, prominence of key points, soundness of arguments, fluency and brevity of narration, logical consistency of the discussion section and its integration with study data. Check compliance of nouns, terms, symbols, measurement units and abbreviations with relevant standards. Identify contents for condensation and appropriate overall manuscript length.

3.2 Figures, Tables and Data

Check for repetition between figures/tables and the main text, necessity for condensation, and rationality of design. Confirm clarity and correctness of images (including photographic and line graphs), as well as accuracy of data with necessary statistical processing. Avoid figures or tables where textual description suffices; avoid figures where tables can convey information.

3.3 References

Only essential primary literature published within the recent three years shall be cited, with appropriate inclusion of domestic references. Cited arguments, data and operational methods shall be properly quoted and consistent with original sources. The number of references may be condensed as appropriate, generally no more than 30. Reference formatting must comply with the journal’s instructions for authors.

3.4 English Abstract

Check consistency with the corresponding Chinese abstract. For better international communication, the English abstract may contain more comprehensive information than its Chinese counterpart, but shall not introduce content absent from the main text. Verify correctness of English terminology and grammar. The number of English content words shall generally not exceed 400.

4.Principles for Manuscript Acceptance and Disposition

Manuscripts shall be assessed against the above?mentioned political, academic and writing requirements, and corresponding disposition suggestions shall be proposed:

4.1 Full?text Publication or Condensed Full?text Publication

Manuscripts reporting original domestic?first discoveries, newly?emerged relatively mature domestic achievements, as well as novel or deeper practical experience and insights are eligible for full?text publication. Manuscripts with redundant or repetitive content may be accepted after author?led condensation. Studies yielding negative results shall enjoy equal publication rights. Research outputs featuring major innovations and domestic?first discoveries are recommended for fast?track publication to achieve release within four months upon manuscript receipt.

4.2 Abstract?only Publication

Abstract?only publication applies to preliminary research reports, studies replicating previously published but scarce findings with verification value, large?sample analyses that extend understanding despite partial overlap with prior reports, and ordinary research or analytical reports.

4.3 Rejection

Manuscripts shall be rejected for irreparable political or academic flaws, misalignment with the journal’s scope and mission, excessive similar prior publications, inconclusive diagnoses, immature therapeutic approaches, invalid arguments, or negligible scholarly value. Submission of the same manuscript to multiple journals will result in outright rejection, with further administrative measures imposed by the editorial department in accordance with relevant regulations. Where possible, reviewers shall specify major reasons for rejection and provide constructive suggestions to facilitate authors’ improvement, adopting a consultative and collegial tone. Amid abundant manuscript submissions, timeliness shall be prioritized. Guided by the journal’s overall planning, manuscripts shall be processed promptly including rejection decisions based on available publishing capacity.

4.4 Recommendation for Submission to Other Journals

Manuscripts with certain scholarly value yet inconsistent with the journal’s scope may be recommended for submission elsewhere. Manuscripts of acceptable quality may also be suggested for alternative journals due to page?limit constraints under the principle of matching submissions to publishing capacity.

4.5 Archival Manuscripts

Print manuscripts unsuitable for publication due to confidentiality or other reasons may be retained as editorial reference materials upon authors’ consent when necessary.

5.Notes for Reviewers

5.1 Reviewers shall perform peer?review duties with high accountability toward the journal, readers and authors, conducting reviews in a serious, prudent and meticulous manner. All authors shall be treated equally, and decisions shall be made purely based on manuscript quality. Reviewers shall excuse themselves from reviewing and handling manuscripts submitted by persons with whom they have personal connections.

5.2 Reviewers shall put forward clear opinions and disposition suggestions for assigned manuscripts. Ambiguous remarks such as “the editorial department may decide at its discretion”, “determine according to manuscript conditions” or “refer to other experts’ comments for acceptance decisions” shall be avoided. For manuscripts requiring revision, specify revision requirements and rationales. For rejected or supplement?issue manuscripts, explicitly state deficiencies or grounds for rejection. When completing online reviews, reviewers shall fill out review forms carefully. Review comments shall cover political, academic and writing aspects, and be as comprehensive as possible in one submission to avoid repeated revision requests or post?revision rejection that burdens editorial operations. Reviewers shall sign and date completed reviews to assume accountability.

5.3 Reviewers’ identities shall remain confidential to authors. Reviewers shall not share assigned manuscripts with third parties or discuss them with irrelevant persons. If external consultation is needed under special circumstances, this shall be noted on the review form, and confidentiality shall be required for consulted parties. Reviewers shall not disclose their own identity or review comments to authors or any third party other than editorial staff. The editorial department shall synthesize feedback from all reviewers and communicate directly with authors.

5.4 Assigned manuscripts shall be returned within two weeks after editorial assignment. Reviewers participating in the fast?track process shall submit review comments within stipulated time via internet or express mail. If a manuscript falls outside one’s area of expertise and review cannot be performed, return it promptly to the editorial department and recommend appropriate alternative reviewers whenever possible. If heavy workload or other special circumstances prevent timely completion, return the manuscript and inform the editorial department of anticipated review suspension duration. Reviewers who cannot fulfil review obligations for an extended period shall notify the editorial department in advance and return assigned manuscripts without delay. The editorial department implements a reminder system for overdue reviews.

5.5 For manuscripts without final acceptance decisions, reviewers shall use marginal annotations for feedback, so that authors and editors can clearly understand comments and rejection rationales. Remarks shall be objective and moderate. Rejection of a manuscript does not mean rejection of the author; persuasion shall rely on sound reasoning. Authors shall not be compelled to alter their fundamental academic viewpoints.

5.6 Comprehensive balance shall be maintained. Without compromising quality standards, appropriate consideration shall be given to manuscripts from remote regions, ethnic minority areas and grassroots institutions.

6.Qualification Requirements for Reviewers

Reviewers shall be dedicated to journal editorial work, demonstrate rigorous scholarship, exercise due diligence and impartial judgment. They shall be familiar with national policies, regulations and standards for scientific?technical publishing and documentation work. Reviewers shall possess solid theoretical and academic competence, understanding of research design and statistical methods, relevant review experience, sharp problem?sensing capacity and willingness to express opinions, with a substantial record of published works. Proficiency in foreign languages is required. A minimum associate?senior professional title is mandatory, and competence in online review is preferred.

7.Scope of Application

These General Rules apply to external peer?review experts of the journal’s editorial department.

Editorial Department of Herald of Medicine